fbpx

Author: Consumer Choice Center

Le migliori stazioni d’Europa: Milano, Roma e Bologna nella top 10

Per il secondo anno consecutivo, il Consumer Choice Center ha stilato l’European Railway Station Index, cioè la classifica delle stazioni ferroviarie più apprezzate del Vecchio Continente. Nella graduatoria 2021 c’è una new entry al primo posto. E bene fanno anche le stazioni italiane

Migliori stazioni d’Europa. È quella di Lipsia, in Germania, la stazione ferroviaria più apprezzata d’Europa: a dirlo, la classifica 2021 dell’organizzazione Consumer Choice Center, che ha preso in esame le 51 stazioni più grandi del Vecchio Continente. Per stilare la graduatoria sono stati presi in esame diversi fattori, tra questi l’accessibilità dei binari; il numero di destinazioni nazionali e internazionali servite; la pulizia; l’affollamento; la disponibilità e il numero di ristoranti e negozi; la segnaletica. E persino i giorni di sciopero. Il massimo di punti possibili (mettendo insieme i punteggi relativi alle varie voci) è di 139.

Le migliori stazioni d’Europa: la medaglia d’oro del 2021

Come detto, la medaglia d’oro va alla stazione di Lipsia Centrale, in Sassonia, che totalizza 116 punti. Qui, prima dello scoppio della pandemia, transitavano più di 120 mila passeggeri al giorno. Il secondo posto spetta alla stazione di Vienna Centrale con 108 punti, mentre il vincitore dell’anno scorso, la stazione di St Pancras a Londra, scende in terza posizione. 

Le migliori stazioni d’Europa: le italiane

Nelle prime dieci posizioni si piazzano ben tre stazioni tedesche (Lipsia, Monaco e Francoforte) e le tre principali stazioni italiane: Milano Centrale (settima, era ottava l’anno scorso); Roma Termini (nona, era al quarto posto nella classifica 2020) e Bologna (decima, era 39esima). 

Molto buone anche le prestazioni delle altre italiane: Napoli Centralesale dalla 19esima posizione del 2020 al 13esimo posto; Torino Porta Nuova dalla 47esima posizione al 15esimo posto; Firenze Santa Maria Novella dalla 38esima posizione alla 18esima e Roma Tiburtina dalla 40esima posizione al 18° posto. 

Tra le ultime tre della classifica, le peggiori d’Europa, ci sono le stazioni Châtelet–Les Halles (Parigi); Norreport (Copenhagen) e Magenta Paris. 

“Si tornerà a viaggiare” 

Gli autori dello studio hanno sottolineato: “La crisi del coronavirus ha notevolmente limitato la libertà di viaggiare in Europa e nel mondo. I lunghi viaggi in treno sono diventati un ricordo per la maggior parte di noi. Tuttavia, con il numero di vaccinati in costante aumento, ci sono tutte le ragioni per essere ottimisti sul recupero della nostra libertà di viaggiare quest’estate”.

Le 10 migliori stazioni d’Europa

  • 1. Leipzig Hauptbahnhof – 116 punti
  • 2. Wien Hauptbahnhof, Vienna – 108
  • 3. St. Pancras, Londra – 106
  • 4. Amsterdam Centraal – 101
  • 4. Moscow Kazansky, Mosca – 101
  • 5. Frankfurt (Main) Hauptbahnhof, Francoforte sul Meno – 96
  • 5. München Hauptbahnhof, Monaco di Baviera – 96
  • 6. Moscow Kursky, Mosca – 95
  • 7. Milano Centrale – 93
  • 8. Birmingham New Street, Regno Unito – 91
  • 9. Roma Termini – 90
  • 10. Gare Montparnasse, Parigi – 86
  • 10. Bologna Centrale – 86

Originally published here.

Два железнодорожных вокзала Москвы вошли в число лучших вокзальных комплексов Европы

22 марта 2021 г Consumer Choice Center (CCC) опубликовал второй ежегодный индекс европейских железнодорожных вокзалов, в котором выделены 50 лучших железнодорожных вокзалов в Европе по степени удобства для пассажиров. Индекс следует использовать для информирования потребителей и администраторов о том, кто лучше всего справляется с размещением пассажиров. В топ-5 железнодорожных вокзалов по индексу входят Leipzig Hauptbahnhof, Wien Hauptbahnhof, St. Pancras (прошлогодний победитель сдвинулся немного вниз, что также можно объяснить ограниченными услугами Eurostar), а также Amsterdam Centraal и собственно Казанский вокзал. 

«Хотя сейчас путешествие в целом кажется мечтой из прошлого, в конце туннеля есть свет. С выпуском нашего годового индекса мы также хотим напомнить потребителям, что путешествия на поезде снова станут обычным явлением. Высокие баллы были присуждены станциям, предлагающим прекрасные направления по всему континенту, а также полезное сочетание магазинов, ресторанов и удобств, имеющихся на вокзале,» – сказала Мария Чапля, автор индекса. «Главный вокзал Лейпцига возглавляет список лучших железнодорожных вокзалов Европы. Вокзал предлагает наибольшее количество внутренних направлений, а также множество магазинов и ресторанов. Несколько разных железнодорожных компаний используют главный вокзал Лейпцига, что позволило ему выделиться в пятерке лучших. «Система баллов, которую мы разработали для этого индекса, дает хорошее представление о том, какие железнодорожные станции вам следует использовать в следующей поездке, будь то отпуск или работа», – сказала Чапля. «Чтобы избежать негативного впечатления пассажиров и выбрать оптимальные узлы для будущих поездок, мы изучили 50 крупнейших железнодорожных вокзалов Европы (по количеству пассажиров) и оценили их с точки зрения пассажирского опыта, ранжируя их в соответствии с сочетанием факторов, начиная от местоположения и вариантов транспортировки на станции, а также внутренние и международные рейсы », – добавила Чапля. 

Originally published here.

London St Pancras loses its crown as the best railway station in Europe to Leipzig – but Birmingham New Street breaks into the top 10

  • Researchers studied 51 of the biggest railway stations across Europe 
  • They scored them on factors including destinations served and dining options
  • From this data they drew up a ranking – the European Railway Station Index 2021 

London’s St Pancras station has lost its crown as the best railway station in Europe to Leipzig Hauptbahnhof.

Researchers looked at 51 of the biggest stations across Europe and scored them on factors including the number of domestic and international destinations served, platform access and the quality of dining options.

From this data they drew up a ranking – the European Railway Station Index 2021. Vienna Hauptbahnhof comes second in the table, St Pancras third and Amsterdam Centraal fourth.

Germany dominates the prestigious end of the list. Frankfurt and Munich’s main stations come joint fifth, bringing the country’s top 10 total to three.

The rest of the top 10 comprises Moscow Kazansky (joint fourth); Moscow Kursky (sixth); Milano Centrale (seventh); Birmingham New Street (eighth, up from 11th); Roma Termini (ninth); and Paris’s Gare Montparnasse and Bologna Centrale (joint 10th).

The 51st station on the passenger-friendliness list, meanwhile, is Magenta Paris.

The organisation behind the ranking, the Consumer Choice Center, praised Leipzig Hauptbahnhof’s facilities.

It said: ‘The station offers the greatest number of domestic destinations and an array of shops and restaurants. Several different railway companies use Leipzig Hauptbahnhof, which made it stand out in the top five.’

St Pancras’s mini slide down the table was apparently partly due to Eurostar services being cut back as a result of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Choice Center explained in its report for the index that the size of a railway station ‘does not necessarily mean more convenience or better infrastructure’.

It said: ‘Some of the largest stations such as Paris Gare du Nord, Madrid Atocha, or Chatelet–Les Halles [Paris] did not even make it on the top 10 in terms of passenger experience.’

The report’s authors added: ‘The coronavirus crisis has significantly restricted the freedom to travel in Europe and globally. Long train voyages have now become just a memory for most of us. However, with the pace of the vaccine roll-out progressing, there is every reason to be optimistic about regaining our freedom to travel this summer. As consumers across Europe rush to book business trips and vacations, our European Railway Index will come in handy.’  

Originally published here.

Auszeichnung Leipziger Hauptbahnhof zum Besten in Europa gekürt

Leipzig –Der Leipziger Hauptbahnhof ist der beste Bahnhof Europas 2021. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt das „Consumer Choice Center“, das die 50 größten Bahnhöfe Europas unter die Lupe nahm. Leipzig biete Fahrgästen den besten Service. „Er bietet die größte Anzahl an inländischen Zielen und eine Vielzahl an Geschäften und Restaurants. Außerdem nutzen ihn mehrere verschiedene Bahngesellschaften, was ihm insgesamt den ersten Platz einbrachte“, urteilt die Studie.

Die Rangliste setzte sich aus Faktoren, die von der Lage und der Anbindung über das Erlebnis im Bahnhof bis hin zu nationalen und internationalen Verbindungen reichen, zusammen, heißt es. Platz zwei belegte der Wiener Hauptbahnhof vor St. Pancras in London, Amsterdam  Centraal und Moskau Kazansky.

Originally published here.

Her er Europas bedste banegårde

Selv her under Corona, hvor flytrafikken har været næsten lammet, har jernbanerne ikke overtaget opmærksomheden hos hverken politikere, presse eller forbrugere.

Joh – DSB har gjort en indsats for, at vi ikke skal sidde over for hinanden i s-togene, eller at det kræver pladsbestilling at rejse med tog over længere afstande i Danmark.

Men, hvor ofte har I set overskrifter i de store medier om katastrofale passagertal, behov for statslig hjælp for at overleve, eller at hele rejsebranchen er ved at gå konkurs på grund af tog, der ikke kan køre?

Never mind. Jeg ville bare sige, at toge slet ikke har plads i publikums bevidsthed som passagerfly. Måske fordi vi har haft toge i mange flere år end fly, og togrejser ikke skaber så meget prestige som en flyvetur til USA eller Asien.

Det samme gælder jernbane-stationerne. Lufthavne får masser af opmærksomhed, og man sammenligner lystigt deres størrelse, ny-indretning, passager-komfort osv. Hvor ofte gør man det med en banegård?

Den internationale forbruger-organisation Consumer Choice Center (CCC) gør. CCC, der har base i Bruxelles og afdelinger i 100 lande verden over, har netop offentliggjort sit ”European Railway Station Index 2021.”

Det er en sammenligning på kvalitet og service i Europas 50 største banegårde. De er blevet bedømt på en lang række kriterier inklusive antal butikker, muligheder for at købe billet, passager-information, kødannelser, udvalg af destinationer – og i disse moderne tider – Wi-Fi, opladnings-muligheder osv.

Lad det være sagt med det samme. Danmark har ikke en eneste banegård med i den europæiske Top-50. Den højest placerede er Nørreport Station i København, der lander på 51. pladsen hos CCC.

Til gengæld er de tyske banegårde helt på sporet. Tyskland har Europas bedste togstation i Leipziger Hauptbahnhof. Tyskerne har også tre stationer med i Top-10 og 15 med i Top-50.

Her er den aktuelle Top-10 over togstationer. De maksimale antal point er 139, som en banegård kan opnå i CCC’s indeks for 2021:

  1. Leipzig Hauptbahnhof – Tyskland – 116 points
  2. Wien Hauptbahnhof – Østrig – 108
  3. Pancras i London – England – 104
  4. Amsterdam Centraal – Holland – 101
  5. Moskva Kazansky – Rusland – 101
  6. Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof – Tyskland – 96
  7. München Hauptbahnhof – Tyskland – 96
  8. Kursky i Moskva – Rusland – 95
  9. Milano Centrale – Italien – 93
  10. Birmingham New Street – England – 91

Til sammenligning opnåede Danmarks største banegård – Nørreport – i alt 38 points i konkurrencen….

Originally published here.

Michael Bloomberg turns the dial on Indian health policy

By Shrey Madaan

Large sodas, alcohol, vaping devices and the Internet are just a few of the things the World Health Organization wants to keep us away from.

Lawmakers say it is safeguarding its subjects from evil elements in order to protect them. But many critics also believe Indian sensibilities are composed of graver stuff and are concerned about India’s transition to a “Nanny State”.

The Nanny State is the idea of a government or authorities behaving too protective for their constituents, i.e interfering with their personal choice and hindering their liberty and right to life. 

This is something we have seen Bloomberg Philanthropies try to establish here in India. For years, Bloomberg Philanthropies has bestowed billions of dollars to global issues close to the billionaire’s heart such as education, environment and public health, transforming Bloomberg into a sort of flamboyant private government. 

This is evident when he began the Anti-Tobacco Campaign in India, causing a drastic boom on tobacco products, laying a strong foundation for intellectual precision on imposing bans on vaping devices and persuading the Health Ministry to adopt larger health warnings on various consumer goods

Thanks to his Nanny State mission, Michael Bloomberg was named as World Health Organisation’s “Global Ambassador For Non-communicable Diseases and Injuries,” a mission funded by himself for many years.

While it’s noteworthy to appreciate Bloomberg’s recent expenditures into Covid-19 research, his prolonged mission to spread the nanny state overseas via the soft power of the WHO is not only paternalistic but derogatory as well. This emphasis on soft power and negligence towards substantive reforms highlights the inefficiency of WHO. 

Their focus on soft power is evident from foisting soda taxes, imposing bans on e-cigarettes and vaping devices in third world countries and initiating Anti-Tobacco campaigns like here in India. Because the WHO and Bloomberg put so much emphasis on these various issues, it is not too difficult to draw a line between those activities and the failure of the WHO to help contain the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in China. 

These lapses in Covid response, together with WHO detracting from its mission to safeguard us from pandemics, is a principal reason for opposing the global Nanny State expansion by people like Bloomberg. The recent channelling of funds into Indian non-profit agencies in exchange for a strong lobby against tobacco products and safer alternatives have called the credibility of Billionaire’s influence in question and has brought them under scrutiny. 

In response, the Indian government increased surveillance of non-profit groups, stating their actions to be against national interests. The Indian government tightened the scrutiny of NGOs registered under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The action has been opposed by critics claiming the use of foreign funding law by the government as a weapon to suppress non-profit groups concerned about social repercussions of Indian economic growth. 

The note drafted by the Home Ministry’s Intelligence wing raised concerns about targeting Indian businesses and its aggressive lobby against them. The three-page note acknowledged Bloomberg’s intention to free India from tobacco and other products but also elaborated upon the significance of the sector bringing revenue of 5 billion dollars annually for the governments, and employment generated for millions. The note also highlighted the negative implications of aggressive lobby against the sector and how it threatens the livelihood of 35 million people. 

The steps to promoting soft power Nanny State are not only appreciated but are aided by WHO. That is where WHO is pushing us into the abyss. Instead of providing doctors and health care workers with necessary supplies and honing the health care systems, the opulence of Bloomberg has commissioned the WHO as a “Global Police” enforcing taxes and bans on a plethora of consumer products around the world. 

Bloomberg’s Nanny Missions emerged as a grim threat to the health care sector, making the current pandemic more threatening. Let us hope we do not feel the repercussions here at home. 

Originally published here.

[UK] A consultation on the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015

Health text and picture warnings

Question 1: How far do you agree or disagree that the introduction of rotating combined (photo and text) health warnings on cigarette and hand rolling tobacco has encouraged smokers to quit?

  • strongly agree
  • agree
  • neither agree or disagree
  • disagree
  • strongly disagree
  • don’t know

Disagree. Despite a persistent belief that nannying consumers out of smoking, health warning labels haven’t proved to be effective in helping smokers quit. For example, in 2012, the US Court of Appeal stated the following: “The Food and Drug Administration has not provided a shred of evidence—much less the “substantial evidence”— showing that the graphic warnings will “directly advance” its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke.” Сonsumers are already knowledgeable about the harms and risks associated with smoking, which is why there isn’t much evidence to suggest that the warnings actually deter tobacco use.

It is especially difficult to establish a clear causal relationship between the introduction of health warning labels and its impact on the reduction of smoking rates. Furthermore, the potential causality is complicated by the distinction between heavy and non-heavy smokers, and how they respond to health warning labels. The very same applies to all sorts of marketing and branding bans.

A 2019 experiment published in Health Education Research found that the presence of graphic health warning labels did not influence participants’ purchase of cigarettes as a main effect. The said study also found that smokers who were highly dependent on nicotine dependence were slightly more likely to purchase cigarettes when graphic health warning labels were present. It might also be likely that health warning labels have the opposite effect and entice defensive reaction and, in the end, fail to achieve the expected goal of reducing the smoking rates.

Further scientific research in the United Kingdom would be necessary to determine whether a decline in adult smoking cessation can be related to display bans.

Tobacco products should not see any further scrutiny. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of health warning labels is, therefore, inconclusive. Adult consumers should be encouraged to make responsible choices bearing in mind the consequences of their actions. Long-shot policies based on respect for consumer choice such as education should be preferred over health warning labels. 

Question 2: How far do you agree or disagree that the introduction of rotating combined (photo and text) health warnings on cigarette and hand rolling tobacco has deterred young people from smoking?

Disagree.

First, taking into account the arguments mentioned above, health warnings on cigarettes haven’t proved to be successful in deterring smokers, especially heavy smokers, from smoking. Young people should be educated about smoking and freedom to choose so that they become responsible adult consumers later in life. 

For instance, a 2019 study conducted in Australia found that both smoking and non-smoking university students perceived current cigarette packaging warnings in Australia as having lost much of their effectiveness as tobacco control interventions. Non-smokers perceived health warnings on cigarettes as preventive and needed to raise awareness about smoking. Smokers, on the contrary, were pessimistic about such interventions.

Question 3: Should all tobacco products have a combined (photo and text) health warning on their packaging?

Characterising flavours

Question 4: How far do you agree or disagree that the prohibition of characterising flavours has helped smokers quit smoking?

Question 5: How far do you agree or disagree that the prohibition of characterising flavours has deterred young people from taking up smoking?

E-cigarettes

Question 6: How far do you agree or disagree that the current regulations on e-cigarettes have been proportionate in protecting young people from taking up use of these products?

A report commissioned by PHE in early 2020 affirmed that nearly two-thirds of 11-to-17-year-olds in the United Kingdom who currently vape more than once a month had bought products themselves. Numbers like this often lead to prohibitionist calls for further bans and restrictions on vaping products. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between the need to ensure that teens should not be able to purchase vaping products while encouraging adult smokers to quit.

Another report commissioned by the PHE showed that 38% of smokers believed that vaping is as harmful as smoking while 15% believed that vaping is more harmful. This misconception of risk is a huge concern, because it discourages many current smokers to switch to the less harmful alternative – vaping. It is crucial that smokers are educated about the possibility to switch and reduce health risks associated with conventional smoking. Marketing of vaping products needs to be encouraged so that consumers have access to the necessary information about vaping as means to quit.

Further bans of vaping products will drive more consumers to illegal products on the unregulated black market, where there is no guarantee of safety or quality. A larger black market will make it even easier for minors to purchase vaping products with no age verifications at all. 

However, the use of vaping products among adolescents isn’t widespread. Out of 11-18 year olds never smokers only 0.1% vape more than once a week. 

Question 7: How far do you agree or disagree that the current regulations have ensured that e-cigarettes are available for those smokers who wish to switch to these products?

Agree. The UK’s pro-vaping approach should be applauded: it saves lives, and other countries should follow the UK’s example. In particular, that concerns other European countries since as long as the UK continues to remain open to innovation aimed at reducing rates, there is a chance that they might choose to drift away from paternalism that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Despite calls to restrict access to vaping, in particular those that seek to frame vaping as a gateway to smoking, the UK should preserve its role as a global harm reduction advocate.

An analysis of 61 countries showed that 196 million smokers could switch to vaping if other countries treated vaping in the same way as the UK.

However, the UK should further improve its current regulatory framework to achieve its smoke-free 2030 goal (see question 8).

Question 8: What effect do you think the regulations have had on smokers considering switching to e-cigarettes?

Unfortunately, as was mentioned previously, 38% of smokers in the UK believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking while 15% believed that vaping is more harmful. Many regulations have made it more difficult for current smokers to obtain correct information about vaping. The EU Tobacco Products Directive has prevented switching efforts, and after Brexit, the UK has a unique chance to walk away from the EU’s restrictive approach. Excessive bans on advertising of vaping should be lifted in order to ensure smokers – especially heavy smokers – are able to gain all the necessary information about vaping. Significant communication efforts should be channeled to help raise awareness about vaping as a safe means to quit smoking.

Question 9: Do you consider the restrictions on e-cigarette advertising to be an effective way to discourage young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes?

Agree, we should not tolerate teen vaping, and any rise in numbers is concerning. Still, we cannot at the same time deprive millions of adult smokers of safer alternatives (according to Public Health England, vaping is at least 95% less harmful than traditional smoking) because of activities that are already illegal. All studies and surveys show that regular use among minors is rare, so the effort should be placed on helping adult smokers quit or for those who do not want to or are not able to quit to switch to vaping or similar alternatives. It is, therefore, crucial to distinguish between communication regarding age restrictions and access to e-cigarettes for minors as such and that aimed at adult smokers.

Novel tobacco products

Question 10: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements of TRPR on novel tobacco products are proportionate?

Strongly agree, it is crucial that the ucomining legislation update distinguishes between TRPR and conventional tobacco. Vaping was initially invented as a safer alternative aimed at reducing health-associated risks and should be seen as such. We need an on-ramp for harm reduction that is vaping: endorse e-cigarettes as an effective tool to help smokers move to a safer alternative to consume nicotine and eventually quit if they desire to do so.

Enforcement

Question 11: Do you agree or disagree that the penalties for a breach of the regulations are an effective deterrent to ensure compliance with the regulations?

Agree. In the United Kingdom, a video game seller can be fined up to 20,000 GBP for selling age-restricted games to underaged customers. At the same time, a vendor selling vaping liquids to minors comes with a maximum fine of merely 2,500 GBP, an eighth compared to video games. Given that one study found that 5 out of 9 shops sell vaping products to minors, the UK’s fines might need to be adjusted upwards.

The UK should abstain from stricter regulation that target adults, and consequently discourage them from switching. Better and smarter enforcement of existing restrictions on sales should be the focus.

Other question

Question 12: How far do you agree or disagree that there has been an economic impact of TRPR, either positive, negative or both?

Anything else on TRPR?

Question 13: Is there anything else you would like to share on negative or positive impacts the regulations have had on topics not covered above? If so, please explain and include any evidence and research you may have to back your response.

As a global consumer group representing millions of consumers in Europe and globally, we have been working on spreading the harm reduction message to help spread awareness about vaping as a life-saving tool both among smokers and non-smokers. We applaud the UK’s progressive approach to vaping and believe it can do even better after Brexit. In particular, that concerns advertising restrictions and stricter enforcement of the rules concerned with teen vaping. 

We are hopeful that the UK doesn’t give in to scientifically unjustified calls against vaping, and remains an advocate of harm reduction. Added to that, it is also crucial to ensure that the upcoming legislation doesn’t unintentionally target adult smokers in pursuit of reducing vaping rates among teens. Although the UK is the example for Europe and the world, there is room for improvement.

SPoT requirements

Question 14: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements on the packaging and labelling of tobacco products have been an effective way to protect young people from taking up smoking?

Neither agree or disagree. The only way to protect young people from taking up smoking is through education and enforcement of age restrictions. Moreover, plain packaging as a policy hasn’t proved to be effective in the long.

Question 15: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements on the packaging and labelling of tobacco products have helped existing smokers quit?

Regardless of noble motives in place, the failures of plain packaging are numerous and evident. In 2012, Australia passed a nation-wide plain packaging decree. The goal was to reduce smoking rates. During the first years of the ban, more young people started to smoke. The smoking rates among Australians in the age range of 12-24-year-olds increased from 12 per cent in 2012 to 16 per cent in 2013. Little or no improvement was made among people aged 30 or older between 2013 and 2016. People aged 40–49 continued to be the age group most likely to smoke daily (16.9%) and the smoking rates among this age group went up from 16.2% in 2013. At the same time, Australia has seen an enormous increase in roll-your-own cigarettes: 26% in 2007, to 33% in 2013 and to 36% in 2016. 

Plain packaging, like taxation, is intended to push consumers away from particular products considered by governments to be harmful, unhealthy and detrimental to the wellbeing of society. What policymakers tend to overlook, though, is that demand for cigarettes is inelastic and thus neither taxes nor branding bans can substantially affect consumer behaviour. 

Question 16: SPoT regulations apply to cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco. How far do you agree or disagree that SPoT regulations should be restricted to cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco (and not other tobacco products)?

Pack size

Question 17: How far do you agree or disagree that the introduction of a minimum pack size or weight is an effective way to protect young people from taking up smoking?

The UK government should abstain from introduction of further interventions not only because those are costly and paternalistic, but also because they haven’t proved to be successful in achieving the set goal. Instead, the government should focus on endorsing vaping as a means to quit smoking

Appearance of cigarettes

Question 18: How far do you agree or disagree that the requirements on the appearance of cigarettes are proportionate?

Enforcement

Question 19: Do you agree or disagree that the penalties for a breach of the regulations are an effective deterrent to ensure compliance with the regulations?

  • agree
  • disagree
  • don’t know

Other question

Question 20: How far do you agree or disagree that there has been an economic impact of SPoT, either positive, negative or both?

Anything else on SPoT?

Question 21: Is there anything else you would like to share on negative or positive impacts the regulations have had on topics not covered above? If so, please explain and include any evidence and research you may have to back your response.

CONSULTATION IS AVAILABLE HERE

Research on ageing: Senolytics let us live longer and healthier lives

The EU is currently trying to “beat cancer” with a new plan, which sets out to ban or restrict certain behavioural habits, such as smoking or drinking. Instead, we should look to innovation to increase our lifespan.

Supporting medical research to fight disease is seen by most people as something laudable, not controversial in any case.T he reaction seems to be different when it comes to stopping and slowing down the ageing process itself. Such an undertaking may strike many as either an unrealistic utopia or an immoral intervention in the course of nature.

Neither assumption is necessarily valid: In recent years, this kind of ageing research has gained immense popularity and scientific foundation; so-called senolytics play a vital role in this. So it is no longer a utopian thought experiment of some eccentrics.

Stopping the ageing process is not immoral, either, because it prevents the human body’s natural development. The implicit assumption here is that adhering to the natural process of decay of the human body is morally superior. This is not particularly convincing. After all, even though the use of prosthetic joints and organ transplants, we improve our quality of life and life expectancy in an unnatural, in the first case even mechanical, way.

It’s not necessarily about living forever

Even if you don’t necessarily want to live much longer, there is an important reason to support life extension approaches. In treating diseases such as cancer and diabetes, it has been assumed that it is only possible to stop or alleviate the symptoms that appear after the condition has occurred. Preventive approaches are also being pursued but focus only on the prevention of specific diseases.

In the field of ageing research, however, this approach is fundamentally criticised by numerous scientists. They argue that this strategy does not effectively focus on the actual development of the disease. This is because it is insurmountably linked to the human ageing process. In other words: If we find a cure for ageing, we will most likely also find a treatment for cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular problems and other diseases of old age.

Switching off the ageing process with senolytics

Whatever the reason for being optimistic about the possibility of prolonging human life, senolytics seem to make this project more and more realistic. Senolytics are molecules that can induce the death of senescent human cells. These cells accumulate in the body with age, in humans and animals. Unlike non-senescent cells, these cells no longer divide.

It is assumed that cells divide until they reach the so-called Hayflick limit – usually around 50 cell divisions. After that, programmed cell death sets in. Senescent cells represent a tiny proportion that escapes this fate of the rest of the cells. Instead of dying or being destroyed, they continue to accumulate in the body. This senescence process causes an increase in inflammation in the body and is considered to trigger the ageing process.

It is believed that many signs of ageing and disease can be attributed to the increase in senescent cells – from dementia, osteoporosis, frailty, diabetes and heart disease to liver and lung disease and the more frequent occurrence of cancer.

The aim of senolytics to kill senescent cells, therefore, seems logical – removing cells that appear to be fundamentally responsible for the ageing process. An effective endogenous mechanism that leads to the cell death of senescent cells does not seem to exist. If this were the case, these cells would not accumulate over the years and cause all kinds of age-related diseases.

Senolytics could be ready for use in a few years

Even though this mechanism seems logical to stop the ageing process and associated diseases, this approach may still seem quite utopian. After all, it is a radical approach to conditions that differs from the previous focus on symptoms. Senolytics are also not just preventive interventions but rather pre-preventive: the aim is not to prevent the onset of certain diseases but to prevent the cause of all age-related diseases.

Nevertheless, senolytics could be ready for use in a few years, as clinical trials with human subjects are already taking place. The results are promising. Well-known biotech companies in this field include:

Currently, Unity Biotech is focusing on the use of senolytics to eliminate specific age-related joint diseases such as osteoarthritis, with an additional focus on eye and lung diseases. Last year, positive results were announced from one of the first studies involving human volunteers whose osteoarthritis symptoms were significantly reduced by adding the senolytic molecule UBX 0101.

Unity Biotech currently has the most progress in the field of human trials. Besides, there is, for example, Oisin Biotechnologies, which is developing a mechanism for precise targeting of senescent cells. The goal here is a tailored removal of senescent cells without damaging other cells. Clinical trials with human participants are currently in preparation.

Due to the rapid success and speed of research in senolytics, it is now assumed that these molecules could be ready for use in a few years to slow down the ageing process. It seems that utopias do not always have to be unrealistic or far away.

Originally published here.

Free trade: a recovery plan with a guarantee of success

If the economy is to recover while learning the lessons of the crisis, all countries are interested in participating in world trade, not turning their backs on it.

On 31 July 2020, the free trade agreement between the European Union and Vietnam officially came into force. Since that date, 71% of customs duties on Vietnamese exports have been lifted, and 65% of taxes on EU exports to Vietnam. This agreement will eventually lead to the elimination of 99% of customs duties between the two parties. The rest of the duties will be lifted gradually over the next ten years for EU exports and Vietnamese exports over the next seven years.

While the European economy is trying to recover from the devastating effects of lockdowns, the news has not been greeted with much enthusiasm.

In France, public opinion has perhaps never been as unfavourable to free trade as in this crisis. According to an Odoxa-Comfluence poll published in April, 9 out of 10 French people want the government to guarantee “France’s agricultural autonomy” and favour “the relocation of industrial companies”. The country’s executive which, not so long ago, defended an “open France”, today hammered home the idea that “consumption must be local”. As if free trade was beneficial in regular times but ceased to be so in times of crisis. 

On the contrary, as economist Thomas Sowell points out in his economics textbook (which is not consulted enough by politicians), “the last thing a country needs when real national income is falling is a policy that makes it fall even faster, depriving consumers of the benefits of being able to buy what they want at the lowest price”. 

As people look to their industries to boost the economy, turning their backs on the essential principle of comparative advantage, it is too often forgotten that free trade has always been a powerful lever for prosperity. This is not a matter of debate among economists. As Gregory Mankiw explained in 2018 in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, the exchange between nations is not fundamentally different from the exchange between individuals: “We are engaged in the task we do best, and we depend on other people for most of the goods and services we consume”. Furthermore, as David Ricardo later noted, you don’t even have to be the best in a field to get a job because specialisation in itself leads to productivity gains that the whole community can then benefit from. The larger the market, the greater these gains. So you can never have enough globalisation! 

For example, over the last forty years, globalised value chains have allowed developing countries to increase and begin to catch up with rich countries, while rich countries have benefited from cheaper and often better quality consumer goods.

Contrary to popular belief, this development has therefore not been to the detriment of the Western working classes but to their advantage. A study conducted on 40 countries and relayed in 2016 by the newspaper The Economist shows that if international trade were to come to an abrupt halt, all social classes would lose out: the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power, and consumers in the first decile would see their purchasing power cut by 63% compared to its current level. The words of economist Thomas Sowell take on their full meaning. 

However, these globalised value chains, which are the source of so many gains for consumers, are now the target of much criticism. The virus is said to have revealed the shortcomings of the “ultra-globalised” system. 

Nevertheless, a closer look at the problem reveals that it is not so much hyper-globalisation as hyper-concentration that is at its origin. Therefore, relocating production to Europe does not solve the problem of dependence on a single geographical area or a single producer. Conversely, globalisation allows the diversification of supply sources and is by nature much more resilient than any autarkic system. 

If the economy is to recover while learning the lessons of the crisis, all countries are interested in participating in world trade, not turning their backs on it. Free trade has already lifted entire nations out of poverty, so why should it not now be one of the solutions to the crisis?

Originally published here.

Washington Examiner

Britain must grant refugee status to Uyghur Muslims

Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his ministers have offered aid to residents of Hong Kong, but the Uyghurs are being ignored.

It is now undeniable that the Chinese government is conducting a genocide in its northwestern Xinjiang province. At least 2 million are or have been incarcerated in a vast network of concentration camps. The harrowing testimonies of former detainees and guards detail starvation, systematic rape, torture, forced sterilization, and mass execution.

But even after both the Trump and Biden administrations stepped forward and declared that a genocide is taking place, the British government has refrained from showing the same moral leadership. This acquiescence of human rights has occurred despite a sustained campaign from prominent activists and opposition politicians. Johnson and his ministers also remain resolutely opposed to the legislative route to better holding Beijing to account. For some time now, the government has maintained a circular logic when it comes to legal declarations of genocide: It knows that China will never agree to be heard by an international court, but it insists that only an international court can judge it guilty of genocide.

Activists both within and outside of Parliament have responded by tabling the so-called “genocide amendment” to the government’s Trade Bill. This would solve the problem by empowering the English High Court to make the determination of genocide instead. But the government has repeatedly sought to quash the amendment. At one point, when members of Parliament looked ready to endorse the amendment, the government resorted to an arcane parliamentary procedure (and a touch of bullying) to block the vote. This triggered fury on both sides of the House of Commons.

For whatever reason, likely the fear of Chinese economic retaliation, the government is willing to abandon what should be sacred British principles of justice. But surely, Johnson cannot oppose the basic humanitarian step of recognizing the plight of Beijing’s victims and offering them a path to safety?

Allowing victims of appalling violence and persecution to seek refuge would be the least that a democratic nation like Britain could do. The government belatedly did something similar for residents of Hong Kong, who have also experienced the sharp end of the Chinese Communist Party’s instincts in recent months. A new visa route was opened, offering Hong Kong-based holders of a British National Overseas passport an expedited route to becoming citizens. The scheme has already seen considerable success, with the government at one point granting five passports a minute to Hongkongers.

The move to offer 3 million residents of Hong Kong an escape route was welcome. Still, we implore the government to extend its hand to the Uyghurs, who are also in need of urgent aid. As the Chinese government takes new steps with each passing week to tighten its comprehensive assault on the Uyghur people, such as receiving deported Uyghur dissidents from other countries, the situation is becoming exponentially more pressing.

A sense of urgency should also sustain in our deliberations. Given Xi Jinping’s staunch refusal to allow foreign experts and investigators into Xinjiang to corroborate its blanket denials of any wrongdoing, we will probably not know the true extent of its ethnic cleansing until it is much too late to do anything about it. In turn, it is infinitely better to risk offering refuge to a few more people than need it than to abandon an entire population to be tortured and killed at the hands of a brutal dictatorial regime.

Having traded with China for decades and contributed to its enormous wealth and political power (and turned a blind eye to its various human rights violations over the years), Britain owes a great debt to the victims of its atrocities. It’s time to start paying back.

Originally published here.

Jason Reed is the U.K. liaison at Young Voices and a policy fellow with the Consumer Choice Center. Jason also writes regularly for the Times (of London), the Telegraph, the Independent, and several other publications. (Follow him on Twitter: @JasonReed624.)

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN